Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Property Divestiture topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Claremore council discusses ordinance allowing sale of 100-acre city parcel; no final vote
Summary
Council members discussed Ordinance No. 2025-616, which would authorize procedures for divesting city-owned property above the charter threshold; staff said the city is not actively marketing the roughly 100-acre tract north of Atwoods and would await FEMA reimbursements before pursuing a sale.
The Claremore City Council discussed Ordinance No. 2025-616 on a potential change to the city charter threshold that governs sale or divestiture of city property, including about 100 acres the city purchased roughly three and a half years ago north of Atwoods along Country Club Boulevard; no final vote was recorded.
The ordinance arose during a staff presentation by Mister Ramirez, a staff member, who told the council that the city charter currently requires council or voter approval for disposition of city property above $25,000 and that the statute triggers the requirement for formal processes if the city were to divest land of that value. Ramirez said the 100-acre property has topographical challenges, no identified end user, and that the city paid for the land in a prior purchase. He said the city is not actively marketing the site and that timing could be affected by pending FEMA reimbursements tied to previous costs.
Council members asked questions about the property’s development potential and about the city’s charter limit. Ramirez described practical concerns — market conditions, interest rates and the lack of a developer ready to pursue redevelopment — and said staff would prefer to retain the property unless a clear, financially prudent opportunity emerged. He said any sale would be handled to preserve cash for contingency needs while the city waits for FEMA funds to be recovered.
The discussion referenced local history of an earlier plan to redevelop the West End, including the expo and fairgrounds, and noted that those economic conditions had not produced a viable buyer. Ramirez explicitly described the conversation as exploratory: no motion to adopt an ordinance was recorded in the meeting excerpt, and the council did not take a final vote during the segment transcribed.
If the council moves forward with the ordinance, it would change the process by which the city could dispose of property above the charter threshold; Ramirez said staff is not rushing any sale and would pursue marketing or developer outreach only if and when the council directs it. No implementation timeline or sale price was provided.
The matter will return to the council for further action if staff or councilmembers request a formal vote or second reading; the transcript does not record any additional steps taken at this meeting.
